Last night they asked for an inventory list of the evidence–which makes sense given the dozens of witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. Now, we here at Legal Insurrection (and Law of Self Defense) are on stand-by ready to jump into action as soon as news emerges, whether that is the verdict itself or some lesser item. The video feeds located below the fold will be active when the broadcasters that control them feel there is something worth streaming.)

In a breaking development, the Special Prosecutor’s Office of Angela Corey has fired the IT specialist who blew the whistle on the prosecution’s concealment of evidence:

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

Twitter Feed:

[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD

Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Saturday, July 13 Commentary

This past weekend I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. I have also instituted a similar coupon for Legal Insurrection followers LOSD2-LI(Coupons works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.) “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.

Another Mark Steyn classic:Zimmerman case’s legal absurdities astound…if Floridians are of a mind to let off a little steam, they might usefully burn down the Sanford courthouse and salt the earth. The justice system revealed by this squalid trial is worth rioting over.

“If you know your Magna Carta, you’ll be aware that “no official shall place a man on trial … without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.” But the rights enjoyed by free men in the England of King John in 1215 are harder to come by in the State of Florida eight centuries later.”

I think the jury will return a guilty verdict on Manslaughter. For two reasons. The defense was unable to get before the jury any evidence of Martin’s less than exemplary character. So, the prosecution’s argument that he was an innocent child went unchallenged. Because that argument was a centerpiece of the prosecution’s closing, I think the judge’s decision precluding use of the cell phone texts was possibly reversible error. Secondly, West’s cross-examination of Rachel Jeantel was embarrassingly ineffective. I think the jury will credit a large part of her testimony. The defense’s best strategic decision was to shunt West to the background after that performance. The evidence before the jury is that an unarmed, innocent child was shot dead by a man who outweighed him by 40 pounds. I do not think the jury will conclude that Zimmerman could extricate himself from the danger he faced “only” through the use of deadly force, which is required under the self-defense instructions.

1. Unwilling – due to being PC, having received threats or bribes, or having political aspirations, being a closet leftist, etc.

2. Saving it for the Appeal, Mistrial, Next trial, etc.

I hope the latter for the sake of this country and all the people involved: George Zimmerman and family, the young IT who was fired by Corey for blowing the whistle on dela Rionda, the law enforcement who have lost their jobs or ben demoted…and every citizen who believes in and depends on our great Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Another possibility:
3. Giving Traymom and Traydad a chance to do the right thing, come clean, admit their parental failures, how Trayvon’s life had been affected by their lifestyles and his choices, that they now believe GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT, call off the race dogs and turn the Trayvon Foundation into child protection and advocacy and parent education fund with scholarships similar to Ben Carson’s foundation.

— How is proving the witness a liar and easily manipulated “embarrassingly ineffective?”

“I think the jury will credit a large part of her testimony.”

— If they do, that’s even worse for the prosecution! She told us Martin turned around to go back to the fight; she told us that he evaded Zimmerman! If we believe her completely, then self-defense is the only rational decision.

“The evidence before the jury is that an unarmed, innocent child was shot dead by a man who outweighed him by 40 pounds.”

— No. That’s not the truth at all. Tell me: Did you actually WATCH the trial?

DeeDee’s testimony was, to me, substantially damning. The “creepy-ass cracka” “innocent child”…??? DeeDee also stood as a stark contrast to the testimony of every one of Zimmerman’s witnesses, and would, to me, speak volumes about who Martin was and the company he was keeping.

The fearing rape “child” who keeps talking to his girl-friend up to the moment he gets physical? And the ONE person in this story who is an apparent bigot?

I thought Guy GROSSLY over-played that “child” BS in his rebuttal. He could have gotten away with it once…maybe twice…but not as a feature of his argument. I would have discounted/dismissed everything the man said after that crap.

I agree Guy’s rebutt was disgusting. I thought he tailored that to an all female, most are Mothers jury. Hope they see that the State was working them and are as outraged as I was.

Re: Ms Jeantel when she remarked GZ could be a rapist. I was waiting for TM’s response. Nothing!! No way would he not say something to that. I have girls w boyfriends, a 17 yr old would not let that go by. TM would have said “I’ll kill him” or whatever, in his own colorful way. Crump scrubbed that. I just hope those women have half a brain and use common sense.

Exactly…when I cautioned my young nephews to watch out for men who want to be their “friend” or strange men who are around them. The immediate response from all of them was they would pound any man who tried to rape them. It wasn’t run home or do their best to avoid attack but an immediate counter attack or preemptive attack. Yet none of my nephews were into fighting or being a thug.

Anyone who knows kids or how about just listen to them riding on the metro (if you dare). These kids are egging each other on into attacking people. I refuse to ride the DC metro anymore. If absolutely necessary, I will make sure that I ride in a car that does not have many young black youths — male and female— especially female.

I know that any little thing real or imagined would provoke attack. Just sitting in a seat they want could bring down a rain of fists. There is a real and under reported problem in DC. Baltimore is worse.

I thought West’s cross of Jenteal was ineffective allright… for the State, and she was purported to be its star witness. West was incredibly effective as he demonstrated her dishonesty and general lack of character.

I’m just curious…did anyone authenticate that the cell phone was indeed Rachel’s cell phone? I think they said Tracy Martin “found” her looking through his plan but how could he since I thought TM’s cell phone was under Sybrina’s plan? Finally, did anyone depose Rachel’s mom?

“I do not think the jury will conclude that Zimmerman could extricate himself from the danger he faced “only” through the use of deadly force, which is required under the self-defense instructions.”
__________________________

To quote MOM, “Really?”

So you think Zimmerman was lying on his back, being straddled by and getting pounded by Martin, and screaming desperately for help for nearly a minute, even though he could have gotten Martin off of him?

That defies common sense. If Zimmerman had had the strength to stop Martin or get away from him, don’t you think he would have done so?

While that may be true, I think O’Mara framed their testimony nicely in the close. Also, the Good eyewitness testimony as well as the discussion of injuries should create a significant amount of reasonable doubt in the Prosecution’s argument.
Also, I think the emotional grounds are balanced by the string of character / voice witnesses for GZ

IKR? Me too. I am a midlife woman living on her own, and I need to be able to defend myself. I live near the thru highway and there’s a lot of drug addiction around here. I don’t want to second-guess myself in a critical moment because I’m wondering if I’ll get Zimmermanned…and that moment of hesitation could get me dead. If there is a conviction, I think the Zimmerman related hesitation will cause many deaths of innocent people.

exactly, if he is guilty self defense will never be able to be used, so we just have to take the beating or the rape, which sickens me being a rape victim. but this is what happens when race fulls the fires

Gonna have to disagree with you. It won’t change much on an individual basis at all. If you’re armed and trained right and you’re threatened with bodily harm, you’ll go on auto pilot and shoot the bastard. In danger, with adrenalin pumping, you’re not going to worry about being Zimmerman-ized.

Don’t worry… unless you’re unfortunate enough to live in a state with anti-second amendment learnings and laws, a woman is probably safe using a gun for self defense. Had the defendant in this case been Georgia Zimmerman, even Al Sharpton’s army would not have been able to get this to trial.

I think not guilty verdicts probably come from B-37 (used to have a concealed carry permit), E-6 (husband has guns) and E-40 (safety officer who’s been a victim of crime). So I think they are hung right now with an edge to acquittal.

Not just CNN – their puppet station HLN too, and MSNBC, and a majority of other too — all top heavy with a disproportionate of T.Martin supporters (many of them black of course) who continue to foist the distorted narrative of GZ disregarding a direct ‘directive’ not to get out of his car and continuing to follow Martin. That lie has been permanently established, and I don’t see any way to remove it from public consciousness.

Actually, it would take quite a bit more than an acquittal to restore my faith in the system. . . .

It would require Angela Corey being fired and disbarred, the judge being removed from her position, and the three prosecutors fired and sanctioned for their role in this kangaroo court. Oh. . . and Crump should be disbarred and jailed for his role in obstructing justice.

Now that combination of events might do it. . . .but the way it looks to me now is that the justice system isn’t really any morally or ethically superior to the Mafiosi.

They just have more power than the Mafia, and are ready, willing, able, and eager to railroad an innocent person if they think there is an advantage in it for them.

7:12:06 to 7:15:43 that is the time of the last call between TM and Dee Dee. Of all the things about RJ (Dee Dee) that bothers me there are two specific statements that keep floating to the top of my truth/BS meter.

First, Dee Dee said she felt guilty when she found out that TM was dead because she thought it was just a fight. She wanted to know the time of death so she could look at the time of her phone calls. Second, Dee Dee says that after the thump and phone disconnected that she was not concerned because she heard people around. She said she HEARD people around.

Neighbor Lauer heard voices followed by scuffling. She muted the TV after hearing the scuffling of shoes on concrete and decided to call 911, grunting followed by yelping begins almost immediately with wrestling on grass, husband tried to call 911 but his phone froze, Lauer picks up her cell phone and calls 911 and yelps turn to cries for help with only one voice screaming.

Lauer 911 call begins at 7:16:11.

Lauer and husband tried to re-inact event and thought that 30 seconds passed from the time they decided to call 911 and the call beginning. So the best guess is that the scuffling began at 7:15:37. Lauer and RJ both testified to hearing the beginning of the encounter or the three part exchange which would have been before the 7:15:37.

Lauer says that she heard Good tell them to stop. Good said that he did not hear yells for help when he first stepped outside, but after he stepped out he heard yells for help. Lauer said that the yelps turned to cries for help after she was on 911. John Good is not heard on the Lauer 911 tape.

Dee Dee said she heard people around there during her phone call.

I suggest that the phone call between Dee Dee and TM continued through John Good stepping out onto the porch and yelling at TM/GZ to cut it out. It was at this point that GZ’s yelps turn to cries for help.

I think Dee Dee was getting her freak on listening to TM beat the crap out of GZ.

I personally agree with you–I think she egged him on. I think his blootoof fell off soon after the fight started, which would be about 10 seconds before the TM-RJ phone call cuts off. If you timeline that to the gunshot, the fight lasted 1:10. People keep referring to 40 seconds but that’s the amount of recorded yelling there is, in the background of the Lauer 911 call.

I think the call record showed when the call was disconnected. I think Dee-Dee felt guilty because she may have encouraged trademark to fight. When that last call started, she said trademark told her he was behind his father’s place. I’m sure thre was more to the conversation since she was on the phone with him as he made his way back to the T to confront the “creepy ass cracker”.

i think your ‘Dead’ on right . Told my wife after Dee Dee testified she felt guilty cause she egged the teenager on to fight . It was like i could hear the cell phone real time in my ears . I’ll stand-by that !!

I might have missed this if ever discussed or brought up in the trial….but was the time of the NE call, 911 calls and TM calls calibrated…meaning…did they determine that they were all set for the exact same time…15 – 30 seconds can make a whole lot of difference to the time line.

Creepy ass cracker is clearly an anti-white racial epithet. Of this there can be no doubt.

GZ called police when he saw a suspicious stalker in his neighborhood. That’s what honest law abiding innocent people do.

In contrast, neither TM nor Jeantel called the police. That’s because criminals don’t call the police when they’re about to commit a crime. The crime was to assault/kill the creepy ass cracker because the child-burglar-stalker-assaulter TM didn’t like being watched, and indeed, may have seen and overheard GZ calling the police.

Jeantel didn’t come forward because she knew she was in serious trouble in the aftermath. Why was she in serious trouble? Because TM had TOLD her he was going to attack the cracker right before it happened. Her encouragement of him doing that or failure to report it makes her an accomplice before, during, and after the fact.

I have been puzzled as to why the defense never brought out that TM never called the police given that the prosecution made a big deal that TM supposedly was trying to get away. Maybe the marijuana evidence could have tied in that way. TM would not have wanted to get caught by the police with marijuana in his system.

Didn’t she also claim that George said something to the effect of ” what are you talking about?” Doesn’t that also show that George didn’t have malice or ill will? Doesn’t that also show that George was not the aggressor?

The key point about the phrase “creepy ass cracker” as put into TM’s mouth by Jeantel is it would have allowed O’Mara to completely reverse the “racial profiling” narrative, had he chosen to go that way. In hindsight maybe he should have faced the issue head on but he and West probably were (and are) extremely fearful for their safety and their families’ safety.

BDLR was careful not to say “racial” because there was no evidence GZ had racially profiled. But he kept saying “profiled” without the modifier clearly trying to imply it without saying it.

The difference is that “cracker” is clearly an anti-white racial epithet. It is crystal clear proof that the only racist in that altercation was TM not GZ. And there’s nothing the prosecution could have done about it had the defense wanted to paint TM as the anti-white racist that he obviously was. Perhaps he would have needed to bring in a linguist or lexicographer as an expert to lay the foundation of explaining the racial prejudice aspects of “cracker” but I’m sure he could have found someone to testify on that.

Afterwards “it’s on.” TM was a racist, he was a thug, he was a sociopath, he could assault/murder someone without a second though on the way home from buying skittles, just as easily as Joe Pesci could have a dead body in the trunk of his car while laughing and eating scrambled eggs at his mom’s house with Ray Liotta in “Goodfellas.”

There have been comments in other places that she was catfishing Trayvon. No one ever asked her- “When did you meet Trayvon?” There is a possibility they were just phone friends, and he thought she was a hottie based on her profile, w/o ever actually having met her…

Does anyone know or has anyone seen evidence they actually knew each other?

They knew each other as kids….years went by and then they started talking about 3 weeks before his death. I agree with the catfishing theory…older woman and all. I also saw on a tweet or facebook page one of TM’s friends making that comment because she had pulled it on another friend…Andre I believe.

I am bothered that the defense chose not to bring in TM’s toxicology report indicating the marijuana in his system. I seem to recall GZ saying to the dispatch that TM was acting strange and looked like he might be on drugs. It might not be a big factor in how the events played out that night but I think it is significant.

Also, did GZ ask his attorneys, after being asked by JDN whether he wanted to testify, “Where’s the mairijuana?”

Many people incl. those on the jury might assume that being high on marijuana would make you more “mellow” and it doesn’t sound like there was really a reliable expert who could have testified one way or the other.

Adolescent brains are vulnerable to damage from drug use, they going through a neuronal pruning process that diminishes judgment and increases emotional lability anyway – drugs are like adding the nitro to teen brain glycerine.

NO sane or responsible civil authority should legalize drugs of any kind. In fact, Oxycontin should be taken off the market it is so addictive and often abused.

Amen. The only people who want pain medications removed from the market are people who don’t have to live with pain 24/7/365. I’d like to see those people live one hour of my life. They’d be screaming in the ER within five minutes–and that’s with pain medications of which I’m sure the poster disapproves.

If a teenager or anyone else decides to use medications unlawfully and/or dangerously so be it. Let them destroy their bodies and brains and futures if that’s what they wish. As long as I’m not paying to feed and house them I couldn’t care less. But for Pete’s sake don’t condemn me and others with major spinal issues to life in excruciating pain because idiots are, well, idiots.

But O’Mara adopted a deliberate of strategy of not attacking TM’s character or motivations based on trial evidence. He started off by apologizing which was a mistake.

Obviously he and West are afraid of being assassinated and for their familys safety too.

TM’s motivation to attack GZ was that TM was the “no limit ni**a”, a thug. That didn’t get into evidence but what DID get into evidence was Jeantel putting the words “creepy ass cracker” into Tm’s mouth. Direct evidence of TM’s racial animus towards GZ. But O’Mara deliberately ran away from that, when in closing he said “Teenagers say things, it’s meaningless.”

It’s not meaningless and MOM knew it isn’t meaningless, it goes to the heart of why this all occurred.

But MOM didn’t want to be accused of being responsible for race riots and he didn’t want himself, West, and their families assassinated so unfortunately despite being a great lawyer his courage faltered. He didn’t do it because of fear. He himself said this is a bizarro trial. It’s bizarro because the person who was doing the racial profiling, as based on the evidence of his own words from Jeantel, is falsely portrayed as the victim of [racial]”profiling.”

The “child” was a sociopath, someone who could murder someone who was looking at him the wrong way while coming back home from the store with his snack in his pocket, and do it without a second thought.

That’s the “NO LIMIT NI**A” mentality at work. “NO LIMIT” to what he is willing to do. No limitations on his behavior. Guns, drugs, racism against whites, fighting, murder.

Marco, defense attorneys know they have to walk a fine line when attacking the victim (look at what happened to that strategy in the Jodi Arias trial). Unless the defense has really strong evidence to support bad character, they tend to walk gingerly in those areas. If the judge had admitted Trayvon’s devastating texts, that would have been a different circumstance — but I think all that she allowed in from the recovered deleted phone files to be shown to the jury was that shirtless photo showing his musculature.

RJ also testified that TM called GZ a “Nig..r” as in “Shit the nigga” following me or behind me.

Maybe GZ did not walk back to his vehicle. Maybe he walked down the street opposite the T and walked through the first break in the houses and came back onto the dog walk/side walk area and started walking back up to the T.

Even if he did… NONE OF THAT IS ILLEGAL.

GZ’s flashlight was dropped at the T intersection. I think that TM did immediately hide in the bushes several houses away from the T intersection. He probably saw GZ walk past the T and was waiting for him (lying in wait) to walk back through. Or the “nigga behind me” was just RJ’s made up testimony.

All the same I suspect that TM watched GZ walk back to the T intersection to head back to his car. RJ was egging him on to go fight so TM walked up to GZ and confronted him.

My thoughts on the time line are that it took Jennifer Lauer longer than 30 seconds from the sounds of the scuffling (GZ nose already broken…he is staggering, dazed, dizzy [says the victim of two/three broken noses (swimming pool dive in the shallow end & fall down stairs and one pulled punch boxing jab that just brushed the tip of my nose] to when the 911 call connected.

GZ is already screaming for help by the time the 911 call begins at 7:16:11. I think he was already screaming for help before Lauer calls.

No offense to Jennifer Lauer but would you call 911 at the sound of scuffling especially if you thought it was just a bunch of kids. Lauer testified that she walked over to her stairs away from the window to call 911 because she thought it was kids and did not want them to hear her snitching on them.

I think the fight went on for longer than scuffling before they called 911. Would you run into the kitchen to find a knife or some weapon to arm yourself before going outside to break up a fight with some kids that sounds like shoes on a basketball court?

I think there were GZ’s yells for help that prompted them to call 911 and “arm” themselves.

Whilst I can understand the reasons why tox report hasn’t been brought to the evidence, I’m really confused why MOM decided to soften TMs character, instead of at least neutrally describing GZ’s experience that he was angry, foul-mouthed and eventually physically aggressive. That it was Tracy Martin, Rachel Jeantel who actually lied under oath, but again MOM tried to excuse RJ (that she never really wanted to have anything to do with it) and never pursued exposing the fact that TM’s father clearly lied under oath.

I just explained it. FEAR. MOM didn’t want to say what needed to be said to tie the defense all together because of what was and is happening outside the courtroom.

MOM couldn’t address TM’s motives because that would force the jury and the world to honestly confront a direct reversal of the MSM and prosecution’s narrative. The racist in the equation is TM, not GZ. As proven by TM’s own words, in evidence via Jeantel: “creepy ass cracker.” That’s racist on its face. Anti-white, racist animus.

That’s bull. That’s b.s. It does matter. It shows what TM’s state of mind towards GZ was right before TM assaulted TM. It was a racially-motivated “wilding” attack by a young thug, someone who the excluded evidence proves was undoubtedly a sociopathic thug, so sociolpathic that he could call his girlfriend and discuss the attempted murder he was about to commit on his way home from the store to get a candy snack.

Got your previous reply and now clear point “fear”, thanks. It sucks, of course, that defence attorney’s argument is that affected by fear. I mean, the whole “race situation”, not just this case, sucks big time.

And just look at what happened after the trial ended. Joint news conference by Seminole sheriff and police chief, letting everyone know that if anyone’s thinking of rioting, the police will be ready for it.

Now just which part of the community did they feel the need to direct that at?

Caucasians?

Hispanics?

Hispanic Caucasians?

I actually think that the law enforcement news conference was in itself racist and offensive because the clear inference was they FEARED rioting or public disturbance from the BLACK community, isn’t it? Which is in itself a racist expectation.

They had to beat around the bush of course but that’s clearly what was happening.

I’m not afraid because I live 1000 miles away. I wouldn’t really be afraid of riots either since this is clearly a media and DOJ driven event. (32 media and only 19 protesters outside the courtroom.)

If I was Omara and west however I’d be scared spitless for myself and family because there ARE anti-white “no limit” racially motivated loons who WILL take a potshot at them and their loved ones.

Omara really shouldn’t have shown any sympathy for TM at all in the courtroom since it’s cognitively dissonant with the defense theory of justifiable self-defense by GZ. But Omara felt he had no choice because of what is going on OUTSIDE the courtroom, and perhaps, to some extent, he feels his jurors are irrational.

Angela Corey is a very typical power-mad, politically motivated prosecutor. No different than Nifong, no different than the vast majority of career prosecutors who want to use the collection of “scalps” (conviction whether just or not) to advance their careers.

The only difference in a case like this one is how much the light of public scrutiny and media attention shines brightly on their conduct. If they are too arrogant and piss off the wrong politician then they can jam themselves up because they can attract an equally-or more powerful political adversary who has an agenda (not usually “justice”) to topple them.

You think what Corey and Nifong do as exposed in these very public cases is atypical or unusual?

It’s not. It’s par for the course. If it wasn’t so natural, so standard, it wouldn’t be so easy for them to do.

This crap is pulled on indigent defendants ALL THE TIME.

Because there is nothing they can do about it other than to perhaps have their attorney use it as a basis to cop a slightly less onerous plea deal than they were initially offered.

It all gets buried usually. The system grinds defendants down down down.

If you are a middle class or indigent defendant facing 20 years in the slammer on a constitutionally defective arrest and don’t have the tens of thousands of dollars to litigate, maybe hundreds of thousands, and don’t want to take a chance of wasting your life away in the slammer, you have no choice. You cop the plea to 6 months county time and five years probation.

Excellent, thumbs up comment. Nevertheless, I confess to a feeling that it is too bad that those with sufficient assets are able to skate because of constitutionally defective arrests, when poorer defendants cannot. I entered law school in 1966, when many were skeptical about the wisdom of the new Miranda decision, and I continue to hold that skepticism. In my mind more equal justice in this regard would be for no defendants to walk because of constitutionally defective arrests.

Jeantel was brought up in earlier posts, and there is a question I have asked a few times, but have not received a response other than quips about the judge or RJ.

RJ stated she knew TM was not going to get into a fight b/c he would have ceased his conversation w/her. West was just starting to question her about “how” she knows TM would have hung up the phone (i believe) before JDN sustained the prosecution’s objestion.

It seems paramount that either side can try to ascertain “how” a particular witness gained that knowledge. For example, Good stated than TM was on top, and I believe both lawyers asked him how he knew, and Good simply stated I saw the hoodie on top and red jacket on bottom.

My assumption is that West was either going to draw out his previous fighting, or get RJ to admit she doesn’t know. On what legal grounds was West denied this line of questioning?

When a liar is testifying especially when she is a hostile witness, it’s difficult to get affirmative evidence of anything out of them by cross-examination. They will continue to evade, twist, turn, prevaricate, obfuscate, modify, on the witness stand and you end up with a murky mess. Exactly like Jeantel.

When you have a liar you aren’t trying to ask the jury to believe ANYTHING she says except that which you do not wish to dispute out of what she has said.

You address this by telling the jury in closing, “Jeantel is a proven liar. I don’t care that she’s a teenage girl. She knows right from wrong. She never called the police. She admitted that she’s lied about some things and gave rather lame excuses.

One thing that you CAN believe is what she forgot to lie about. She admitted that TM called GZ a “creepy ass cracker,” clearly an anti-white racial epithet, because she didn’t realize she had to lie about that too. In her world, in TM’s world, there’s no such thing as anti-white racism. Even on the witness stand she didn’t believe cracker is a racist word. That’s because in her world, in TM’s world, racism only goes one way. So she told the truth about that, because she didn’t understand the implications of what she was saying.

But everything else she said, you have to assume is an utter lie. If it was the truth she would have gone straight to the police and told them about it.”

Any one of those ladies with teenage children could readily have a, “There but for the grace of God…” moment. Maybe one or more has/had a wild chile, and was reliving some dark moments.

Is that bad for the defense? Could easily be GOOD for the defense. Some of those ladies may know in DeeDee. They may know a Martin.

And you can mourn the loss of a human being, while knowing they were killed doing the wrong thing. When parents put their children in the ground because they were driving drunk, I can shed a tear with them without excusing the behavior.

Or as we refer to her: Nazi Grace. A despicable person, who constantly distorts and twists the truth. He entire career, as prosecutor and broadcaster has been filled with misconducts of various kind (cited twice by the Supreme Court of Georgia, who cited her in one case for demonstrating “her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness,” and for knowingly using testimony from a detective she knew was false.

The jurors could be in fear of retribution and crying at state’s rebuttal could signal “I’m one of the good guys, please don’t target me, my family, my dwelling or residence.” I think the jurors want to signal sympathy to the Martin/Fulton family to protect themselves. But I am cynical.

Also keep in mind that ‘wiping tears from their eyes’ could easily be something like an itchy eye or perhaps a contact lens that is getting dry. These reporters were searching for what they wanted to see.

I’d be crying that Guy and the prosecution had made such a mockery of the judicial system by attempting to take away man’s liberty with nothing more than what the state had. Screaming f’n punks and F’n assholes does not a depraved mind make or we are a nation of depraved minds…ooops, asked and answered.

Regarding the marijuana in Martin’s system issue. My belief is that the defense never intended to use that evidence because for the marijuana usage to be legally relevant an expert would have to testify about the likely effect of the THC level on a person’s behavior. Its doubtful an expert would say the THC would make the person more aggressive; in any case such an opinion would have been challenged by a prosecution expert and the trial would have gone off on a tangent. I think the defense raised the issue hoping to get shut down by the judge, thereby setting up an appellate issue.

Or in legal terms the fact that someone involved in such an altercation may have had some marijuana in their bloodstream is simply not “probative” of any relevant fact.

It doesn’t prove he was more violent or less violent that night. It doesn’t prove he was prone to violence. It doesn’t prove who attacked who. It doesn’t make it more probable or less probable that GZ used justifiable force in self-defense.

There are aggressive people who smoke marijuana and those who don’t. Their are peaceful people who smoke marijuana and those who don’t. There is no proof one way or the other as to which category TM might have fallen into or what surrounding circumstances that night might have made marijuana consumption probative of any issue in the case.

Listen, if M’OM wasn’t prepared to jump all over “creepy ass cracker”–if he was willing to give TM a pass for that, which he in fact did–then it’s sort of pointless to worry about marijuana.

Marijuana, like alcohol, and depending on dosage, is a disinhibiter. It doesn’t cause aggression per se, but lowers the capacity for restraint of someone who is already aggressive by history. In other words, while straight/sober, the aggressive person is able to keep a lid on it, but give him one drink, one joint, one bowl too many, and that control begins to slip. Who among us doesn’t have a anecdote about some crazy thing we did while high and/or drunk, that is, while our usual ability to control impulses to do/say stupid things was disinhibited by an intoxicant? It is a societal/cultural cliché – the meek employee who gets drunk at the office party and tells off his boss, etc.

Marco is correct in that it is irrelevant because nothing in human behavior, sober or high, is 100% consistent and predictable. General truisms about the disinhibitive effects of marijuana do not constitute specific evidence of anything concerning TM on the night in question. Besides, his THC levels were not remarkable, indicative more of residual presence than current intoxication.

Excluding phone/social media also took lean/purple drank/sizzurp off the table, and that negatively impacts its users quickly. If there is a hung jury and the state decides to retry, it will give defense more time to authenticate and analyze the social media and phone records and call expert witnesses and then the reasonableness of GZ’s perceptions will get him definitively acquitted the next time.

I truly hope that it doesn’t come down to that and a re-trial. The issue and argument has been self-defense as written and defined by Fla. There should not be any asterisks and/or exceptions. If the legislature wants to amend the current law, they can do it once Zimmerman is found not guilty on all charges.

It seems a complete travesty to me that this jury deliberates the fate of George Zimmerman while having a completely FALSE perception as to who Trayvon Martin really was. I just cannot get over the unfairness of it.

It amazes me that Guy’s final closing was essentially justa polished refinement of the basic arguments put forth in March 2012 that this child had died and somebody needed to pay the price. No mention of any evidence or proof that a crime was committed, but George Zimmerman has to price.

And then so many of the talking heads say how great they think his closing was. Even many of the legal types. To them it was great because the prosecutor, through his oratory skills, may have convinced the jury to vote based on their emotions and ignore the evidence. It is strange the way we view success in our justice system at times.

The truly screwed up component to what you say is the actual price that he may have to pay. The price for 1) Manslaughter of a 2) child using a 3) firearm is a mandatory minimum 25 years sentence, with the possibility of life although I don’t believe Nelson would do that. I can see why Florida has that as a penalty, but I cannot support that high of a price in this case, no way. George is in a very bad place right now…

Oh well, the reporters tweeted that George and his family were smiling in court this morning. Hopefully they will have a great day!

I thought Guy’s closing stunk. Not only did he blather without adequate facts, adding in inappropriate and misleading hyperbole and flat-out inaccuracy, but also his voice had that faux dreamy, oily tonal quality of insincere drip.

The reason to not attack Martin’s character is simple: It does not matter if Martin saved 33 nuns from a burning building and then gave a kitten mouth-to-mouth to revive it the day before. All that matters is those couple of minutes between when Zimmerman first saw him and when he was shot.

The state fought hard to create one impression because they’ve been arguing a basically fact-free case. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if Zimmerman is the one who set the fire to the nun’s convent and kicked the kitten; all that matters is that brief time frame. Anything else muddies the water.

Since the prosecution alleged or seemed to allege that Zimmerman provoked this incident, evidence of TM glorifying fighting would seem probative. Since Zimmerman had a broken or near broken nose, evidence that TM bragged about knowing how to break someone’s nose is also probative.

If the state is arguing that GZ misperceived an innocent black kid–notice the state is totally ignoring GZ’s reports of suspicious behavior in the NEN call(s)–then doesn’t that open the door to exploring whether his perceptions and intuitions were justified? Maybe GZ was right.

I’m afraid of calling 911 now, because it might be used against me. This case is utterly disgusting.

You attack Martin’s character because at least in his rebuttal closing argument Guy brought it into issue (which was inevitable and points out Nelson’s error in excluding the cell phone evidence).

By repeatedly referring to TM as a “child” the clear implication is that he was an “innocent” child. TM’s age is obviously completely irrelevant to what did or did not happen; he was not a child “of tender years”, like a three or five year old; he was a 17 year old physically adult “juvenile.” Child only in the sense of being under 18 years of age, but not a child physically.

Linda Blair was a child in the Exorcist right? Does that mean she wasn’t possessed by Satan?

No it doesn’t does it. Being a child doesn’t mean squat in terms of innocence, children can be some of the most sociopathic people they are.

In fact that’s the sociological angle of the young black wilding male w/o a strong present male role model, right in a nutshell.

They are children who grow up to be physical adults but never develop morally or ethically beyond an infant’s sense of morality which is no sense of morality other than “I want it and I will take it and I will beat the crap out of you if you don’t let me have my way.”

And that’s how you get TM’s self-appellation as “NO LIMIT NI**A.”

No limits at all. No moral limits, no ethical limits, no limits on his BEHAVIOR.

Cause that’s how his family and community raised him, just like all the other “NO LIMIT NI**A”s that are wandering out there in the dead of night and cause it to be necessary to have neighborhood watches.

If you can’t present evidence, like the text messages, you have a good chance of getting blowback. Also, O’Mara was very forceful in countering the unarmed little teen idea (cardboard cutouts, concrete), and also completely demolishing the idea of GZ as a violent wannabe cop.

I’m not going to second guess them or call them cowards or spineless because they didn’t break out the righteous indignation. Trayvon is not on trial here, GZ is, and all O’Mara needs to do is create reasonable doubt. He set it up with the argument for “factual innocence”, and then offered reasonable doubt as the compromise verdict.

If TM was the type of person to save 33 nuns and give a kitten mouth to mouth he would not have done what he did on Feb. 26, 2012 nor have had the type of texts/photos that were found on his phone, nor have been suspended from school, etc. All that matters is what happened in those two minutes? Really?

It matters because normal, nice boys don’t lie in wait to sneak up on and punch out strangers. Normal nice boys who are actually concerned (“scared”) about being “followed” by a “creep” at a time when they are not in imminent danger, would just go home and, perhaps, report the matter to their parents.

This has been a fascinating story. It is distressing to see the moral slide of our system of government. I believe it will require great effort to restore honor and integrity to the legal system, it seems that justice has been thrown under the bus in favor of political outcomes.

A few years ago I had a case that involved the NTSB. The first 5 years of that case were essentially my client, and one other client, against the NTSB. While the NTSB is not exactly like the Angela Corey operation, there are some similarities. The public has a false image of the NTSB as a neutral fact finder. It has its own political agenda, and that agenda affects its “investigations”.

Since GZ is not an expert witness there would have to be a little bit more though, not just the way he subjectively thought TM was acting.

You can say things like “he smelled of marijuana smoke on his breath” “he had bloodshot eyes” “he was staggering” etc.

Also since GZ wasn’t testifying it wouldn’t be relevant anyway. His pre-trial statements come in through the prosecution witnesses but that in itself doesn’t give the defense the right to offer evidence that TM was smoking marijuana or if so what does it prove?

I think all these problems are because MOM didn’t want to connect the obvious dots: TM didn’t attack GZ because TM was high on marijuana. TM attacked GZ because he had racial animus against white Hispanics and like most other sociopaths got offended when someone looked at him the “wrong” way.